Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Pedro Camacho et al
Filing
4
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: remanding case to California Superior Court, Orange County; Case number 30-02011-0530485. Mailed certified copies of minute order, docket and CV 103 to superior court. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 cv 103) (twdb)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 12-00707 AG (RNBx)
Title
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. PEDRO
CAMACHO et al.
Present: The
Honorable
May 7, 2012
ANDREW J. GUILFORD
Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:
Date
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE
For the reasons that follow, this case is REMANDED to the California Superior Court,
County of Orange.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendants in state court, seeking
to evacuate Defendants from foreclosed property (“Property”) and requesting related
damages.
Defendant Pedro Camacho (“Defendant”) now files a Notice of Removal (“Notice”) to
remove the unlawful detainer action to this Court. Defendant claims that removal is
proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (original federal question jurisdiction); and 28 U.S.C. §
1332 (diversity). No federal jurisdiction over this action exists under either reasons.
First, no diversity jurisdiction exists because the amount in controversy falls under the
requisite $75,000. The underlying unlawful detainer action is a limited jurisdiction
complaint alleging less than $10,000 in damages.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 12-00707 AG (RNBx)
Date
May 7, 2012
Title
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. PEDRO
CAMACHO et al.
Second, no federal question exists. “The presence or absence of federal-question
jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's
properly pleaded complaint,” not by reference to any counter-claims defendants may
raise. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). An unlawful detainer claim
such as the one asserted by Plaintiff here does not raise a federal question. See, e.g.,
Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, at*2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003)
(same); Onewest Bank, FSB v. Fabionar, 2010 WL 5058394, at *3 (N.D. Cal.Dec.6,
2010) (same); Partners v. Gonzalez, 2010 WL 3447678, at * 2–3 (N.D.Cal. Aug.30,
2010) (same). Thus, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims under 28 U .S.C. § 1331.
In closing, the Court reminds Defendant that “[s]peedy adjudication is desirable [in
unlawful detainer actions] to prevent subjecting the landlord to undeserved economic loss
and the tenant to unmerited harassment and dispossession when his lease or rental
agreement gives him the right to peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property.”
Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 73 (1972). Improper removal of unlawful detainer cases
raises the concerns stated in Lindsey. Defendant is cautioned not to improperly seek
federal jurisdiction, particularly for delay. See Newman & Cahn, LLP v. Sharp, 388 F.
Supp. 2d 115, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (finding that a removal was “frivolous and
unwarranted,” but declining to order sanctions against the removing party “because she
[was] pro se,” though warning her “that the filing of another frivolous paper with the
Court may result in monetary sanctions under Rule 11”).
DISPOSITION
Defendant fails to establish that federal jurisdiction exists over this case. Thus, the case is
REMANDED to the appropriate state court.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 12-00707 AG (RNBx)
Date
May 7, 2012
Title
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. PEDRO
CAMACHO et al.
:
Initials of
Preparer
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 3
lmb
0
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
